Authors: Andrew Ter Ern Loke
Publish Date: 2016/07/12
Volume: 55, Issue: 2, Pages: 263-272
Abstract
Erasmus and Verhoef suggest that a promising response to the infinite God objection to the Kalām cosmological argument include showing that 1 abstract objects do not exist 2 actually infinite knowledge is impossible and 3 redefining omniscience as G for any proposition p if God consciously thinks about p God will either accept p as true if and only if p is true or accept p as false if and only if p is false I argue that there is insufficient motivation for showing 1 and 2 and that G is problematic as a definition of omniscience
Keywords: